Skip to main content
Glama
EduBase

EduBase MCP Server

Official
by EduBase
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

edubase_post_user_name

Update a user's first and last name, with optional full and display name fields, and receive confirmation of the change.

Instructions

Update the name of a user: first and last name, optionally the full and display name. Returns whether the name was changed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
userYesuser identification string
full_nameNofull name (1-255 characters)
last_nameYeslast name (1-64 characters)
first_nameYesfirst name (1-64 characters)
display_nameNodisplay name (1-255 characters)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
userYes
changedYes
successYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv2.0.0
    • removedOutput schema / properties / changed / description
      Removed value: -"name has been changed"
    • removedOutput schema / properties / success / description
      Removed value: -"operation is successful"
    • removedOutput schema / properties / user / description
      Removed value: -"the user identification string"
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.1.2
    • addedInput schema / $schema
      Added value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "changed": {
+      "description": "name has been changed",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "success": {
+      "description": "operation is successful",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "user": {
+      "description": "the user identification string",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "user",
+    "success",
+    "changed"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observedv1.0.22

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the operation is a non-read (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive update. The description adds the useful detail that it returns whether the name was changed, and it does not contradict the annotations, but it does not disclose auth requirements, idempotency implications, or error behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded purpose, explicit optionality, and a return-value note. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given a simple parameter surface, full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, the description is nearly complete for safe invocation. The only notable gap is usage guidance relative to the broader patch_user sibling.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents each parameter, so the description need not repeat details. It does clarify that first/last names are required while full/display names are optional, but this largely restates the schema's required array.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific action ('Update the name of a user') and the resource (user name), and spells out which fields are affected. It is easily distinguishable from read-only siblings like get_user_name, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from broader user-update tools such as edubase_patch_user.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for updating a user's name and identifies optional fields, so an agent can infer when to call it. It provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or comparison with alternatives like patch_user.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools